[erlang-questions] Is it safe to unlink from gen_fsm on the fly?

[Jayson Vantuyl]

Unlinking is bad mostly because you can leak processes.  One of the  
advantages of the supervision tree is that you can guarantee that all  
children get killed when restarts happen.

I would recommend having the reconnection process always running, and  
have the gen_server send it an async message every time the connection  
is down and there is a pending request, maybe on a timeout.

On Sep 21, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Sergey Samokhin wrote:

> Hello.
>
> I'm trying to make my wrapper around epgsql more tolerant of network
> outages. When my gen_server detects that connection has been lost, a
> special process is created to make a connection in an asynchronous
> manner (I want to handle calls to the server, so I can't block in
> reconnect function). When connection is established, pid is sent back
> to the gen_server and 'connector' process is unlinked from the pid.
>
> Are there any pitfalls of unlinking from working gen_fsm? Does gen_fsm
> store parent id anywhere into the state?
>
> I haven't found using of the parent process's id in the epgsql  
> sources.
>
> P.S. I see another way to implement smoothly reconnects without
> blocking gen_server: by using erlang:start_timer/3 in the gen_server.
> I haven't decided yet which way is better =)
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- 
> Sergey Samokhin
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org
>



-- 
Jayson Vantuyl
kagato@REDACTED